Is everything relative? The "Prime Directive" is evil

[Alceste]

Come on.....common sense? Hello?

Blessings, AJ

That is common sense. Pedophilia was a widespread problem in Canada's Christian residential schools. The rape of children was not a custom in indigenous cultures prior to their introduction to Christain culture.

 

[look3467]

God made it simple, you're making it complex.

It's black and white, any gray areas in between is what we want to fill in as.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Blessings, AJ

 

[McBell]

You cannot blame all missionaries for the acts of the few or even the many. By doing so you are simply proving that you are just as intolerant as they, that there is nothing that they can do which will convince you that their intent is always to do evil.

Seems to me that the intentions of the missionary should be put second to the results of the missionaries.
I mean, the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

Yet there are folks like Schweitzer who healed the sick, catholics who stayed on the islands of those who had be ostracised by their native cultures for leprosy. Those who saw the suffering of the Untouchables and decided that such was not acceptable regardless of what the cultural authorities had to say.

Um...
so you are fine with using a "few" missionaries when you like their results, or their results help your argument, but to use a "few" missionaries that were epic fails is being intolerant?
Hypocrite much?

No, it is not right to change a culture without the input of those who live IN the culture but it is also not acceptable to leave a person or a group to suffer or die because you fear creating some kind of cultural contamination.

Interesting paradox you have created here.
So who wins if a culture does not want "saved" from annihilation?
Who gets to decide what is and what is not best for a given culture?

Cultures are very important but without human-beings there are no, can be no cultures, human-lives are therefore, IMO, far more important than their culture.

Does this mean that you feel justified in destroying a culture merely to save them from a perceived harm?
What gives you the right to force your morals, ethics, values, etc. on another?

 

[McBell]

God made it simple, you're making it complex.

It's black and white, any gray areas in between is what we want to fill in as.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Blessings, AJ

Hey, if you ever make it back to reality, you should look me up.

 

[McBell]

Not really, it's that you can not see my point of view to understand it.

blessings, AJ

Seems your ego has gotten away from you.

 

[look3467]

Everything is relative? Relatively simple I'd say when it comes to good and evil.

Hopefully, the good will out weigh the evil on life's scale.

Blessings, AJ

 

[kiwimac]

Seems to me that the intentions of the missionary should be put second to the results of the missionaries.
I mean, the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

I tend to agree with you here.

Um...
so you are fine with using a "few" missionaries when you like their results, or their results help your argument, but to use a "few" missionaries that were epic fails is being intolerant?
Hypocrite much?

I was actually responding to much of this thread in which every missionary was being attacked. As someone else mentioned you have to look at both positive and negative to make a balanced comment. This thread was severely out of balance and while I am capable of hypocrisy I don't see it in that particular comment.

Interesting paradox you have created here.
So who wins if a culture does not want "saved" from annihilation?
Who gets to decide what is and what is not best for a given culture?

The culture itself chooses but I point out that not all individuals within a particular culture may want to be 'annihilated' (to use your example) those who wish 'saving' should be saved, those who do not should be able, likewise, to choose not to be.

Does this mean that you feel justified in destroying a culture merely to save them from a perceived harm?
What gives you the right to force your morals, ethics, values, etc. on another?

Nice strawman and a wonderful example of reading all the words and still getting the content wrong.

 

[McBell]

Nice strawman and a wonderful example of reading all the words and still getting the content wrong.

Interesting how you did not answer the question...:yes:

 

[Alceste]

God made it simple, you're making it complex.

It's black and white, any gray areas in between is what we want to fill in as.

1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Blessings, AJ

The world is complex, not simple. Anybody who knows anything about nature knows that. Ethics are especially complex if the pursuit of "good" is interpreted as an effort to create the greatest (empirically measurable) benefit for the greatest number.

Are you telling me you believe the world is not the way your god made it? (This is going to end up having something to do with an arbitrary, mythical forbidden apple and some cunning feminine wiles, isn't it?)

 

[look3467]

The world is complex, not simple. Anybody who knows anything about nature knows that. Ethics are especially complex if the pursuit of "good" is interpreted as an effort to create the greatest (empirically measurable) benefit for the greatest number.

Are you telling me you believe the world is not the way your god made it? (This is going to end up having something to do with an arbitrary, mythical forbidden apple and some cunning feminine wiles, isn't it?)

Since you already given my supposed answer, I guess I need not have to respond?

But I will anyway.

Mankind can make it as complex as it wants.

God makes it very simple, either you do good or you do evil.

The management part of that, God left it up to you.

Now, how complex do you want to make it?

One can not have it both ways.

One time, one can be good, and yet another time, one can be evil.

The Grey area is in-between the two.

God made it with the express purpose to give you and I the ability to choose.

Again, what one makes of it, is totally up to the individual.

blessings, AJ

 

[ChristineES]

How would any of us know if a primitive group is evil or good? How do we know if God approves or disapproves of this society.

 

[look3467]

How would any of us know if a primitive group is evil or good? How do we know if God approves or disapproves of this society.

First of all. I believe we all of us are given a conscience.
Second, that conscience is tempered by what our parents teach us, what we learn spiritually, what we learn from others, and finally, the experience of life.

Born to primitive parents can only produce limited knowledge according to their own society.

Therefore, I believe evil is relative to all of the above being experienced and the decision being made by the individual as to how much of all of it would be accepted without any outside influences.

What we consider evil may not be evil to them.

We, who believe in the God of the bible are given guidelines by which if we try to follow, will keep us out of evil ways.

Some standards, those gray areas between good and evil, are accepted by some as standards against evil based on their beliefs.

But then again, those gray areas can be very troublesome to, especially when some have evil motives.

So, what it comes down to, in my opinion, is that each one of us has to at some time in our lives come to a place where we are somewhat satisfied with out beliefs.

What I believe God desires, is that we, as gods of our own lives, will make the right moves towards the good based on the desire to do so, rather than to be forced to do so by some man made law restricting us to some form of belief.

That's how I see it.

Note: I try never to criticize anyone's beliefs, for we are all at different levels of knowledge, spiritual growth and life's experiences.

Blessings, AJ

 

[joea]

First of all. I believe we all of us are given a conscience.
Second, that conscience is tempered by what our parents teach us, what we learn spiritually, what we learn from others, and finally, the experience of life.

And that is why look3467, people should not decide what is good for others. The self consciousness is a false center, because it means your conscious is reflected on to others and by an by, everybody is adding to your ego. The good doers do this and try to modify people so they don't become a problem to society.

 

[Alceste]

Since you already given my supposed answer, I guess I need not have to respond?

But I will anyway.

Mankind can make it as complex as it wants.

God makes it very simple, either you do good or you do evil.

The management part of that, God left it up to you.

Now, how complex do you want to make it?

One can not have it both ways.

One time, one can be good, and yet another time, one can be evil.

The Grey area is in-between the two.

God made it with the express purpose to give you and I the ability to choose.

Again, what one makes of it, is totally up to the individual.

blessings, AJ

Virtually none of what you or I get up to in the course of a day can be categorized into "good" or "evil". When you eat breakfast, which is it? Good for the farmer who produced the bacon maybe, but pretty evil from the pig's point of view. When you sleep and dream, is that good or evil? The fact is, rather than lofty spiritual ideals, we are guided by pure biological necessity almost 100% of the time, just like every other organism. We then use our exceptional intellect mainly to justify our behavior after the fact.

If we are to accept for a moment that your conception of how good or evil you or others are has little impact on the actual, real world impact of your behavior (surely Pol Pot thought he was good and his enemies evil), then it becomes clear that the ONLY way to discern whether your behavior is "good" is to measure (objectively, empirically and dispassionately) its impact on the world around you.

As I said, this is not simple. It is a very complex task. The basic fact that what benefits one being almost always harms a multitude of others makes it complex. If you believe God made the world, then this happens to be the way She made it. Surely, being omnipotent, She could have created a world where no being had to kill and eat another to survive and everything was therefore very simple and obvious. If simplicity was what She really desired, the world would look very different. More stable. Less diverse. No need for life to consume life or create waste.

IMO, claiming that you can get the rules of God out of a book is a complete cop-out as far as morality or ethics are concerned. The only "simplicity" gained from this approach is that of shrugging off your personal responsibility for your actions and their impact.

 

[look3467]

And that is why look3467, people should not decide what is good for others. The self consciousness is a false center, because it means your conscious is reflected on to others and by an by, everybody is adding to your ego. The good doers do this and try to modify people so they don't become a problem to society.

This forum format allows for the presentation of opposing views.

One takes what one wants out of it, and or presents what one wants for others to read at their own peril.

If, as a modern society, we have the knowledge and the means by which life is improved, why not share it with the world.

The same goes for religious information.

An example of this is in my own case.

I was raised a Catholic, converted to Southern Baptist, moved on to non-Denominational Churches.

It had been a slow progression in my spiritual growth but came to a dead end when I couldn't find answers to my questions via the main stream religious organizations.

The net is where I was able to find those answers because the net is not redistricted to any one view.

So, if I were an individual in a primitive existence, and I found new knowledge, I would definitely consider all options.

As for the conscience, your right. But first the conscience must experience the difference between good and evil before it can make up it's own mind as to what degree it will accept or reject good or evil.

What we all write here is from individual consciences, whose life's experiences, knowledge in and of spiritual matters, knowledge in and of of natural matters which help formulate what we are now.

There will always be degrees, for in the contrast is what makes life interesting.

That is why God created us with the potential to decipher between two extremes.

Of course, He gave us some tips on how to live within those extremes and not bring harm to ourselves.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

Virtually none of what you or I get up to in the course of a day can be categorized into "good" or "evil". When you eat breakfast, which is it? Good for the farmer who produced the bacon maybe, but pretty evil from the pig's point of view. When you sleep and dream, is that good or evil? The fact is, rather than lofty spiritual ideals, we are guided by pure biological necessity almost 100% of the time, just like every other organism. We then use our exceptional intellect mainly to justify our behavior after the fact.

I have no real argument against what you said, except that morally,given a set of guidelines to follow, will help distinguish between what is morally right and not.

I for one am a student and believer in the wisdom of the bible an am guided by it's many stories, examples and what I deem truths in and about life.

I believe what this verse states is real: Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

That statement in its self confirms the existence of a spiritual conscience embedded in the seed of all mankind, that at any particular point in time may awaken to lead and to guide one against those things which harm nature or humans.

Of a murderer, can be said to have no conscience, or lost his conscience.

..."we are guided by pure biological necessity almost 100% of the time"...

I would say that there is within the conscience both a natural and spiritual side which help guide our decision making based on our acquisition of knowledge, life's experience and personal desires.

You and I have different up-upbringing's, justifying out different views; not that either one's views is wrong, but that by sharing each others views we can learn from each other.

My current view concerning all other views are legit, in their own right, for in my view God has covered all His bases, and there is not one soul that He has left out of His sight.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

If we are to accept for a moment that your conception of how good or evil you or others are has little impact on the actual, real world impact of your behavior (surely Pol Pot thought he was good and his enemies evil), then it becomes clear that the ONLY way to discern whether your behavior is "good" is to measure (objectively, empirically and dispassionately) its impact on the world around you.

For a moment, you may accept that my conception of what our view of good and evil is to this extent: Does it impact the world, has it impacted the world and to what extend of impact has it already accomplished.

Judging from the conception of the One God as given by the Jews, the law of Moses and all its prophets, Jesus is the end of all that.

Being the end of all that in this respect is: that he accomplished in human form what no body else could by fulfilling all the law of Moses and bringing liberty to the world.

No other individual in humanity has had an impact in human history as Jesus.

then it becomes clear that the ONLY way to discern whether your behavior is "good" is to measure (objectively, empirically and dispassionately) its impact on the world around you.

I will accept your statement above except for the word "only" because it is not the things around us that make us do anything we don't want to do.

We either give into them or we reject them at a price.

Blessings, AJ

 

[look3467]

As I said, this is not simple. It is a very complex task. The basic fact that what benefits one being almost always harms a multitude of others makes it complex. If you believe God made the world, then this happens to be the way She made it. Surely, being omnipotent, She could have created a world where no being had to kill and eat another to survive and everything was therefore very simple and obvious. If simplicity was what She really desired, the world would look very different. More stable. Less diverse. No need for life to consume life or create waste.

I can simply sum it all up for you in one sentence: "Love thy neighbor as thy self".

If we abide by that, then there can be no harm done.

I also don't have a problem with you addressing God as "She", and by the way, I do appreciate you capitalizing the letter "S" out of respect.

The world was, in my opinion, created as a divisor, meaning that all things are at odds with each other, beginning with the animal kingdom, and with the spirit/person as a means by which we could be justified as gods (lower case g) lords over this habitation.

As stated: Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Reality: Unless there are opposing sides there can be no means to fuel growth, one way or the other.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Darkness]

I am a staunch opponent of the Prime Directive, and I have seen every episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation. If we can intervene in a foreign culture to produce good results, we should, but we must also not succumb to hubris and automatically assume that we are more civilised than those with less technological advancement.

 

[look3467]

IMO, claiming that you can get the rules of God out of a book is a complete cop-out as far as morality or ethics are concerned. The only "simplicity" gained from this approach is that of shrugging off your personal responsibility for your actions and their impact.

I'll honor your opinion!

My personal responsibilities, behavior as far as ethics and morality are concerned are based on two things:
1. That I love the Creator God with all my heart, mind and soul, and
2. That I love my neighbor as I love myself.

In those two, I am free to exercise them to no limit, for in them, are no laws restricting me.

How do they influence my behavior, my attitude and my passion for life?

It gives this life worth and makes others life's equally the same, as in brother and or sisters.

Leave you with this statement: Phi 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Blessings, AJ